It's widely rumored that mail-order brides have contracts with whatever organized crime they are part of, to marry someone, gain their trust, and drug them to make it easy for other criminals to harvest their organs to sell on the black market.

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

It's widely rumored that mail-order brides have contracts with whatever organized crime they are part of, to marry someone, gain their trust, and drug them to make it easy for other criminals to harvest their organs to sell on the black market.

It seems like there would be easier ways to get someone's organs. If I was in organized crime, and wanted to harvest people's organs, I would just lace recreational drugs with something that knocked people out and sell them.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

It's widely rumored that mail-order brides have contracts with whatever organized crime they are part of, to marry someone, gain their trust, and drug them to make it easy for other criminals to harvest their organs to sell on the black market.

It seems like there would be easier ways to get someone's organs. If I was in organized crime, and wanted to harvest people's organs, I would just lace recreational drugs with something that knocked people out and sell them.

Yes, but those people have families and friends and whatnot that care for them and do police investigations more thoroughly.

People who order mail order brides single themselves out as excellent targets.

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

It's widely rumored that mail-order brides have contracts with whatever organized crime they are part of, to marry someone, gain their trust, and drug them to make it easy for other criminals to harvest their organs to sell on the black market.

Wow, thanks dude. You sure saved the people on this site who were going to order a mail bride because of that advert!

It's widely rumored that mail-order brides have contracts with whatever organized crime they are part of, to marry someone, gain their trust, and drug them to make it easy for other criminals to harvest their organs to sell on the black market.

Wow, thanks dude. You sure saved the people on this site who were going to order a mail bride because of that advert!

LOL, you're welcome, Kinesis. I guess I got through to you just as you were dialing in your order XD

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

At 7/11/2012 1:23:07 AM, Cermank wrote:The worst blow to female emancipation is when you make light of such disgusting objectification.

Um, no, I think it's when you force females onto the auction block for such things

Making light of such things is not a blow at all. No force involved.

Same as if she's willing, not a blow at all.

When you make light of such a situation- you have accepted it. This ad was a blatant objectification, they didn't even try to hide the fact. Lauding it is basically accepting the premise, and then being indifferent to it. Feminism can't succeed if people are indifferent to women rights.

That's worse than being ágainst' human rights, because when you're against human rights- you are exposing the world to the hypocrisy and idiocy of the platform, which is furthering the feminist cause. When you're indifferent to it, when you can laugh about woman rights, you just don't care. That's a blow.

At 7/11/2012 1:23:07 AM, Cermank wrote:The worst blow to female emancipation is when you make light of such disgusting objectification.

Um, no, I think it's when you force females onto the auction block for such things

Making light of such things is not a blow at all. No force involved.

Same as if she's willing, not a blow at all.

When you make light of such a situation- you have accepted it.

So when liberals make fun of conservatives, it is because they've actually accepted conservatism? And when conservatives make fun of liberals, it is because they've actually accepted liberalism? Okay.

This ad was a blatant objectification, they didn't even try to hide the fact. Lauding it is basically accepting the premise, and then being indifferent to it. Feminism can't succeed if people are indifferent to women rights.

That's worse than being ágainst' human rights, because when you're against human rights- you are exposing the world to the hypocrisy and idiocy of the platform, which is furthering the feminist cause. When you're indifferent to it, when you can laugh about woman rights, you just don't care. That's a blow.

So you're saying that it is better to openly support the objectification of women, then to make fun of it? I'll go wake my wife up and force her to make me a sandwich.

So when liberals make fun of conservatives, it is because they've actually accepted conservatism? And when conservatives make fun of liberals, it is because they've actually accepted liberalism? Okay.

Accepted it as a valid viewpoint, yes. No one makes jokes on Nazism, because that would be distasteful. (Except when it is your intent a.k.a dark humor)

That advertisement was bad, one of the worst case of objectification I've seen. Joking about it is distasteful. But when you do make jokes about it, jokes that don't condemn the act, that is a subconscious acceptance of a assigning a lower value on the life of a woman. It's sad.

This ad was a blatant objectification, they didn't even try to hide the fact. Lauding it is basically accepting the premise, and then being indifferent to it. Feminism can't succeed if people are indifferent to women rights.

That's worse than being ágainst' human rights, because when you're against human rights- you are exposing the world to the hypocrisy and idiocy of the platform, which is furthering the feminist cause. When you're indifferent to it, when you can laugh about woman rights, you just don't care. That's a blow.

So you're saying that it is better to openly support the objectification of women, then to make fun of it? I'll go wake my wife up and force her to make me a sandwich.

For the cause of feminism, it is better to actually think about the issue. Laughing at it is trivializing the issue. If you joke about degrading the value of the females, that's bad. That's worse. If you joke about the people who degrade the value of females, that's all right.

Although similar things do actually happen. They're just not publicized in newspapers.

"Warning: Something's Not Right Here!workthatmatters.blogspot.com contains content from consumerist.com, a site known to distribute malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site.Google has found malicious software may be installed onto your computer if you proceed. If you've visited this site in the past or you trust this site, it's possible that it has just recently been compromised by a hacker. You should not proceed, and perhaps try again tomorrow or go somewhere else.We have already notified consumerist.com that we found malware on the site. For more about the problems found on consumerist.com, visit the Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page.

If you understand that visiting this site may harm your computer, proceed anyway."

Thank you...

#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

Although similar things do actually happen. They're just not publicized in newspapers.

"Warning: Something's Not Right Here!workthatmatters.blogspot.com contains content from consumerist.com, a site known to distribute malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site.Google has found malicious software may be installed onto your computer if you proceed. If you've visited this site in the past or you trust this site, it's possible that it has just recently been compromised by a hacker. You should not proceed, and perhaps try again tomorrow or go somewhere else.We have already notified consumerist.com that we found malware on the site. For more about the problems found on consumerist.com, visit the Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page.

If you understand that visiting this site may harm your computer, proceed anyway."

At 7/11/2012 1:23:07 AM, Cermank wrote:The worst blow to female emancipation is when you make light of such disgusting objectification.

Um, no, I think it's when you force females onto the auction block for such things

Making light of such things is not a blow at all. No force involved.

Same as if she's willing, not a blow at all.

When you make light of such a situation- you have accepted it.

Tell that to this Jew:

This ad was a blatant objectification, they didn't even try to hide the fact.

"Objectification" is not a thing capable of being called "fact." The word as typically used by people like you describes nothing about reality and everything about the way people like you perceive things. Define "objectification."

Feminism can't succeed if people are indifferent to women rights.

I don't care if "feminism succeeds," I care about humans as individuals, starting with myself. Furthermore, humor, see above Brooks et al, does not imply indifference. I don't try to prove to you that libertarianism is correct by saying that libertarianism won't succeed if you disobey one of it's tenets, I point to something you might already agree is a value. Why are you doing otherwise with feminism, whichever of the many feminisms it is you're selling?

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

That was depreciative humor. It made fun of Hitler. This one made fun of woman rights. There's a difference.

This ad was a blatant objectification, they didn't even try to hide the fact.

"Objectification" is not a thing capable of being called "fact." The word as typically used by people like you describes nothing about reality and everything about the way people like you perceive things. Define "objectification."

Objectification is disregard of the intellectual abilities of a woman and reducing her worth to only a sexual object i.e. an object that can provide sexual pleasures to another person.

Feminism can't succeed if people are indifferent to women rights.

I don't care if "feminism succeeds," I care about humans as individuals, starting with myself.

That was a general observation. Never claimed you should care about feminism succeeding.

Furthermore, humor, see above Brooks et al, does not imply indifference. I don't try to prove to you that libertarianism is correct by saying that libertarianism won't succeed if you disobey one of it's tenets, I point to something you might already agree is a value. Why are you doing otherwise with feminism, whichever of the many feminisms it is you're selling?

The difference here is that I assume feminism to be just, and true. And that I wouldn't need to debate it's validity.

That was depreciative humor. It made fun of Hitler. This one made fun of woman rights.

Didn't even mention "woman rights."

This ad was a blatant objectification, they didn't even try to hide the fact.

"Objectification" is not a thing capable of being called "fact." The word as typically used by people like you describes nothing about reality and everything about the way people like you perceive things. Define "objectification."

Objectification is disregard of the intellectual abilities of a woman

You're taking the verb form of "object" and the process noun form of the verb form and making them gender specific? What the hell kinda linguistics is this? Most objects don't even have a gender.

and reducing her worth to only a sexual object i.e. an object that can provide sexual pleasures to another person.

That incidentally wasn't done. Selling her for that purpose in no way implies that she is not capable of performing other functions.

The difference here is that I assume feminism to be just, and true. And that I wouldn't need to debate it's validity.

If you assume something beyond debate, never mention it on debate.org

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

So when liberals make fun of conservatives, it is because they've actually accepted conservatism? And when conservatives make fun of liberals, it is because they've actually accepted liberalism? Okay.

Accepted it as a valid viewpoint, yes. No one makes jokes on Nazism, because that would be distasteful. (Except when it is your intent a.k.a dark humor)

Right, no one makes those kind of jokes.

That advertisement was bad, one of the worst case of objectification I've seen. Joking about it is distasteful. But when you do make jokes about it, jokes that don't condemn the act, that is a subconscious acceptance of a assigning a lower value on the life of a woman. It's sad.

Here, I've looked up the definition of Satire for you. Here, I'll even paste the definition so you don't have to click on the link.

"The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

This ad was a blatant objectification, they didn't even try to hide the fact. Lauding it is basically accepting the premise, and then being indifferent to it. Feminism can't succeed if people are indifferent to women rights.

That's worse than being ágainst' human rights, because when you're against human rights- you are exposing the world to the hypocrisy and idiocy of the platform, which is furthering the feminist cause. When you're indifferent to it, when you can laugh about woman rights, you just don't care. That's a blow.

So you're saying that it is better to openly support the objectification of women, then to make fun of it? I'll go wake my wife up and force her to make me a sandwich.

For the cause of feminism, it is better to actually think about the issue. Laughing at it is trivializing the issue. If you joke about degrading the value of the females, that's bad. That's worse. If you joke about the people who degrade the value of females, that's all right.

That was depreciative humor. It made fun of Hitler. This one made fun of woman rights.

Didn't even mention "woman rights."

That was what spurred the discussion so I assumed that was relevant. I thought the tangent was not entirely within the topic being discussed.

This ad was a blatant objectification, they didn't even try to hide the fact.

"Objectification" is not a thing capable of being called "fact." The word as typically used by people like you describes nothing about reality and everything about the way people like you perceive things. Define "objectification."

Objectification is disregard of the intellectual abilities of a woman

You're taking the verb form of "object" and the process noun form of the verb form and making them gender specific? What the hell kinda linguistics is this? Most objects don't even have a gender.

Why would that matter? Feminists strive for equality. They focus on women because traditionally they are the one's who need the uplifting.

Plus, that isn't even unique. There are so many words that are the noun form ofd a verb, so I don't know what is so surprising about that. Qualification, Classification, Application... what?

and reducing her worth to only a sexual object i.e. an object that can provide sexual pleasures to another person.

That incidentally wasn't done. Selling her for that purpose in no way implies that she is not capable of performing other functions.

I incidently didn't see a book in the hand of the women in the pic. Or anything to suggest that the intellectual value of the 'bride' would even matter. Intellect, for one, is not replaceable. When you are buying a bride, and even offering to 'replace' it if she 'ran' away, something that suggests that the ad didn't even care for the will of the woman, (again undermining the choice of the woman) it is effectively just selling a vagina.

The difference here is that I assume feminism to be just, and true. And that I wouldn't need to debate it's validity.

If you assume something beyond debate, never mention it on debate.org

I don't assume woman rights to be beyond debate. In this instance, I didn't think anyone would argue that the ad was objectifying woman. It was in that note that I made the comment. If you want to debate it, fine. I will. But that comment did not aim to do so, and hence would not justify woman rights.

This ad was a blatant objectification, they didn't even try to hide the fact.

"Objectification" is not a thing capable of being called "fact." The word as typically used by people like you describes nothing about reality and everything about the way people like you perceive things. Define "objectification."

Objectification is disregard of the intellectual abilities of a woman

You're taking the verb form of "object" and the process noun form of the verb form and making them gender specific? What the hell kinda linguistics is this? Most objects don't even have a gender.

Why would that matter? Feminists strive for equality. They focus on women

Contradiction.

because traditionally they are the one's who need the uplifting.

"Women are needy" hardly sounds like equalityspeak to me.

Plus, that isn't even unique. There are so many words that are the noun form ofd a verb, so I don't know what is so surprising about that. Qualification, Classification, Application... what?

None of those are given gender-specific definitions unless the base word is as well.

and reducing her worth to only a sexual object i.e. an object that can provide sexual pleasures to another person.

That incidentally wasn't done. Selling her for that purpose in no way implies that she is not capable of performing other functions.

I incidently didn't see a book in the hand of the women in the pic. Or anything to suggest that the intellectual value of the 'bride' would even matter.

You're committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent. That the picture does not mention her intellectual value does not mean it denies it. It simply omits it. I don't deny the value of gold in my last post just because my last post didn't mention gold. If I give you sporting stats for an athlete, I won't give you the IQ-- that IQ is very valuable for the athlete's life, it's just not relevant to the present communication I'm engaged in.

Intellect, for one, is not replaceable. When you are buying a bride, and even offering to 'replace' it if she 'ran' away, something that suggests that the ad didn't even care for the will of the woman

The ad does not care about x =/= the ad denies the value of x. It simply means value is agent-relative.

(again undermining the choice of the woman) it is effectively just selling a vagina.

Which leads to none of your conclusions. If I go apply for construction work, I'm effectively selling my muscles and coordination. This doesn't deny that I can do math.

I don't assume woman rights to be beyond debate. In this instance, I didn't think anyone would argue that the ad was objectifying woman.

The (absurd) definition of objectification you've given us makes "objectifying woman" a redundant sentence.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

This ad was a blatant objectification, they didn't even try to hide the fact.

"Objectification" is not a thing capable of being called "fact." The word as typically used by people like you describes nothing about reality and everything about the way people like you perceive things. Define "objectification."

Objectification is disregard of the intellectual abilities of a woman

You're taking the verb form of "object" and the process noun form of the verb form and making them gender specific? What the hell kinda linguistics is this? Most objects don't even have a gender.

Why would that matter? Feminists strive for equality. They focus on women

Contradiction.

because traditionally they are the one's who need the uplifting.

"Women are needy" hardly sounds like equalityspeak to me.

Stop twisting my words :/ Feminists focus on women because they have been repressed traditionally. They strive for equality of both sexes.

Plus, that isn't even unique. There are so many words that are the noun form ofd a verb, so I don't know what is so surprising about that. Qualification, Classification, Application... what?

None of those are given gender-specific definitions unless the base word is as well.

I don't understand the purpose of this argument. What are you trying to prove? The word objectification can apply to men as well, but here,we were focusing on women. Because that's what the advert focused on.

and reducing her worth to only a sexual object i.e. an object that can provide sexual pleasures to another person.

That incidentally wasn't done. Selling her for that purpose in no way implies that she is not capable of performing other functions.

I incidently didn't see a book in the hand of the women in the pic. Or anything to suggest that the intellectual value of the 'bride' would even matter.

You're committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent. That the picture does not mention her intellectual value does not mean it denies it. It simply omits it. I don't deny the value of gold in my last post just because my last post didn't mention gold. If I give you sporting stats for an athlete, I won't give you the IQ-- that IQ is very valuable for the athlete's life, it's just not relevant to the present communication I'm engaged in.

Exactly. So selling a woman, and 'omitting' her intellectual abilities would suggest that for the purpose of the sale, for her performance as a wife, her intellectual ability does not matter. It has 0 value. a.k.a objectifying her. She's just an object of sexual gratification.

Intellect, for one, is not replaceable. When you are buying a bride, and even offering to 'replace' it if she 'ran' away, something that suggests that the ad didn't even care for the will of the woman

The ad does not care about x =/= the ad denies the value of x. It simply means value is agent-relative.

Why would it mean the value is agent relative? If they didn't even mention the fact, how can the 'consumer' place any value on the intellect?

(again undermining the choice of the woman) it is effectively just selling a vagina.

Which leads to none of your conclusions. If I go apply for construction work, I'm effectively selling my muscles and coordination. This doesn't deny that I can do math.

The difference being, you would not be used even remotely for sexual gratification. Also, Objectification doesn't deny that the individual possesses intellect. It denies placing any value on the intellect, that the intellect is 'useless'.

I don't assume woman rights to be beyond debate. In this instance, I didn't think anyone would argue that the ad was objectifying woman.

The (absurd) definition of objectification you've given us makes "objectifying woman" a redundant sentence.

I've seen feminists do things the right way, and I've seen them do things the wrong way. I'm pretty sure this is the wrong way.

Do you realize how absurd your suggestion is? The notion that women should be portrayed as multi-faceted in all aspects of advertisement and media, when this isn't even the case for men, pets, and objects?

Like RR said, what you *should* be focusing on as a feminist, is the actual existence of sexual trafficking and slavery. Many "armchair feminists" take up the cause because they are indignant, not because they really understand what it is. The result is that there are arguments that sound like the ones you are providing. It seems like you're more focused on either making sure that these female sex slaves are fairly advertised, or that there should be a male sex slave for every female one sold.

All of these side issues stem from the fact that you are misplacing your passion. In this day and age, Feminism has little to nothing to do with women and almost everything to do with men, to change what men and women think of men. That's the way women can obtain equal social standing. Not by harping on these antiquated, impractical, and irrelevant issues of how men and women see women.

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.